CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret

High power energetics like the solid propellant in this system are an area of interest for me. It is also an under appreciated and a somewhat neglected area of military research. The attached paper on energetics discusses how research can bring tremendous technological advancements but difficult to transition into weapons systems.

CLEARANCE: Top Secret

I knew there was still some room in compounds used to increase the power of conventional weapons (as well as improvements in materials, system response times etc.) - but I didn't realise how far things could potentially be pushed. Things are already frightening enough. Hopefully, technological improvements will primarily find peaceful purposes.

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret

When I see Lockheed's specifications for CKEM (60 inches long 100 lbs) I start thinking of concepts of operation. You could mount 10 or more on the Crusher UGV and take on a tank brigade with ten or so of these UGV's. The future of ground warfare ???

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret

When I see Lockheed's specifications for CKEM (60 inches long 100 lbs) I start thinking of concepts of operation. You could mount 10 or more on the Crusher UGV and take on a tank brigade with ten or so of these UGV's. The future of ground warfare ???

CLEARANCE: Top Secret

When I see Lockheed's specifications for CKEM (60 inches long 100 lbs) I start thinking of concepts of operation. You could mount 10 or more on the Crusher UGV and take on a tank brigade with ten or so of these UGV's. The future of ground warfare ???

The HVM for anti-tank operations was seriously explored because of the long time of flight of conventional sub-sonic ATGMs (like TOW). Which meant in the massed Soviet tank attack scenario of West Germany in the Cold War speed of advance would mean that an anti-tank unit could only engage a limited number of tanks. With HVM engagement frequencies could be as high as a conventional tank gun.

But there were a number of problems with this. One non-technical challenge is a HVM as a very high firing signature. A lot of smoke and flash. Which enables everyone else on the battlefield to know where you are and target you accordingly.

As to mounting them on lightweight UGVs and taking on tank brigades this conveniently ignores or is ignorant of a range of other weapons on the battlefield rather than just tank vs UGV. For example low intensity HE artillery fires would have no problems suppressing those UGVs. Another classic example of why armchair generals are always wrong.

Blogger http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de/

As to mounting them on lightweight UGVs and taking on tank brigades this conveniently ignores or is ignorant of a range of other weapons on the battlefield rather than just tank vs UGV. For example low intensity HE artillery fires would have no problems suppressing those UGVs. Another classic example of why armchair generals are always wrong.

Every vehicle can be affected by suppressive HE fires. That's no argument that can be made specifically against small UGVs that are more difficult to detect than normal manned specialised AT vehicles.

I personally consider the AT HVM idea interesting because it would allow tank development to go away from slow-firing 120-140mm guns, back to lighter and more versatile guns of smaller calibres with much more cartridges on-board.

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret

When I see Lockheed's specifications for CKEM (60 inches long 100 lbs) I start thinking of concepts of operation. You could mount 10 or more on the Crusher UGV and take on a tank brigade with ten or so of these UGV's. The future of ground warfare ???

The HVM for anti-tank operations was seriously explored because of the long time of flight of conventional sub-sonic ATGMs (like TOW). Which meant in the massed Soviet tank attack scenario of West Germany in the Cold War speed of advance would mean that an anti-tank unit could only engage a limited number of tanks. With HVM engagement frequencies could be as high as a conventional tank gun.

But there were a number of problems with this. One non-technical challenge is a HVM as a very high firing signature. A lot of smoke and flash. Which enables everyone else on the battlefield to know where you are and target you accordingly.

As to mounting them on lightweight UGVs and taking on tank brigades this conveniently ignores or is ignorant of a range of other weapons on the battlefield rather than just tank vs UGV. For example low intensity HE artillery fires would have no problems suppressing those UGVs. Another classic example of why armchair generals are always wrong.

HVM was also considered for the A-10, with the A-10 carrying 2 19-round packs. As for using it on the battlefield ("it" being CKEM) the unmanned thing is an option. Generally it would be used as envisioned with LOSAT. The thing CKEM does is it enables you to mount a fast-reaction tank killing weapon on a small unmanned vehicle. And it's proposed range of 8km well exceeds that of TOW, Javelin, or the L44.

CLEARANCE: Top Secret

Assuming the embed post works, you should be able to right click in the video area and copy the URL to the Youtube channel. There are about 10 separate videos on LOSAT tests at various ranges and targets. Given the apparent lethality of the missile, I don't understand why the CKEM follow on was cancelled (unless it went black). The apparent energy of impact is possibly sufficient for a hard kill in a head on attack through the main frontal armor.

CLEARANCE: Top Secret

A LOSAT search shows references to carrier vehicles and side mentions but no dedicated thread so I am putting this here since it seems to be the closest match. This is an old video somebody put together showing all the LOSAT test launches stitched together. There is an annoying loss of audio sync with the video. The sound of the rocket launching is almost like a gun shot. I wonder why they canceled this since it was obviously highly effective. Either they really did cancel it (maybe due to per round cost) or it just faded into black.

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret

A LOSAT search shows references to carrier vehicles and side mentions but no dedicated thread so I am putting this here since it seems to be the closest match. This is an old video somebody put together showing all the LOSAT test launches stitched together. There is an annoying loss of audio sync with the video. The sound of the rocket launching is almost like a gun shot. I wonder why they canceled this since it was obviously highly effective. Either they really did cancel it (maybe due to per round cost) or it just faded into black.

LOSAT was cancelled because CKEM promised similar performance in a much smaller missile. Why CKEM was cancelled I do not know. I know Canada was working on something similar but it seems to have died as well.

CLEARANCE: Top Secret

More technical info on the Canadian program, called High Energy Missile (HEMi). Basically an kinetic penetrator dart accelerated to hypersonic velocities by a wrap-around rocket motor and using a minimalist form of beam-riding guidance.

Blogger http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de/

Germany had several experimental missiles of this kind, though apparently mostly for air defence (back when very, very high speed was deemed the future of air target missiles, similar to ASRAAM). We didn't bring any into service, but the Russians have a few SAMs with obvious booster stage for really high speed.

I really should change my personal text

LOSAT was cancelled because CKEM promised similar performance in a much smaller missile. Why CKEM was cancelled I do not know. I know Canada was working on something similar but it seems to have died as well.

CLEARANCE: Top Secret

Most probably because they use a gun charge to eject the missile from the launching tube before the sustainer lights. It looks like a pretty energetic motor to achieve the high speeds in such a short distance. It might be too dangerous to use it inside a gun-like tube launcher.

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret

Because the sound probably came off a stock CD of sounds and they used "bullet_ricochet_noise.wav" for the launch. Almost none of the videos that have been released have the actual sound on them. The only part of any of them that has the actual noise is where the tank is tooling along in the dark, there's an explosion, and suddenly it's running a bit rough. ;D (And even then the missile sound is simulated as it's not going to be on the same channel as the guys talking.)

Even though it's been posted and reposted 45 million times over the years this is still my favorite LOSAT shot. (And it's pretty obviously not ejected from the tube with a precursor charge.)

CL-20 based and other low smoke propellants are promising, but let's remember that the flash of a 120 mm cannon is pretty easy to see with naked eye even at long distances. It also leaves enough smoke and dust in the air behind to remain as a telltale sign for seconds.

CLEARANCE: Restricted

Have been looking for more info on hypervelocity projectiles.
As we're seeing more and more modern Active Protection Systems suggesting "hard kill" capabilities, with Israel claiming newer Trophy (is it Trophy?) can bring down some APFSDS types,
subsonic and transonic ATGMs, either ground-launched or air launched, are going to struggle to defeat future ground armor.

Hypervelocity weapons, though, are going to create exponential problems for APS: while it may be computationally easy for APS electronics to compute to fire a countermeasure capable of bringing down an ATGM moving high subsonic or low transonic (say, into Mach 2-3 range, or even approaching the 1600-1800m/sec of some modern APFSDS (if Israeli claims of Trophy, or it is Iron Dome? are to be believed... I'll wager Trophy has not been tested against many sabot rounds over 1600m/sec.... ),
intercepting an inbound kinetic projectile crossing well past 2000m/sec barely gives milliseconds to react, less than half or even a quarter the time vs a high subsonic ATGM.

If this one missile is touting Mach 6.5, that's over 7200fps, around 2200m/sec?..... APS probably isn't stopping that train, and smoke probably isn't reacting fast enough to blind a distant missile guidance system, either, as these "hypers" will probably be INS-guided (with flight times of only seconds, a complex guidance system for evasive targets won't be required).

Can't wait to revisit discussions like this 10+ years out and see where battefield technology actually ends up going....